Suits99 wrote:I didn't sign up for TLS to have a debate on whether or not I am rich, lets just say I am. My question was answered above that unless you go to a T-14 you should go to the top school in your region-which then meant that Northeastern is a waste and I should do everything I can to get into BC/BU. As a result, I am going to continue studying hard all summer for the LSAT (I am taking it in October) with the hope that my score is high enough to get into these two schools. If not, I will take over my dads company buy an island on Fiji as recommended above and you can all come for some drinks.

Glad to hear it, though I wouldn't say no to Fijian drinks. Good luck!

romothesavior wrote:Just about anyone whose family can afford to drop 200k on school is very rich. Not saying there is anything at all wrong with that, and I don't have any ill-will towards anyone who is fortunate enough to be in that situation, but it does leave a bad taste in people's mouths to hear "I'm not rich but my family was willing to give me $200,000 for my education. I'm middle class... just like you!"

Not necessarily. Depends on what you call "rich." My family has an income in the very low six figures, which puts us at about the 85th percentile. Do you call that rich? I grew up living a lifestyle that I presumed was typical of the upper-middle class--a mid-sized house in the suburbs with a good school district, two Toyotas, one vacation a year. My dad has been working for forty years and my mom for thirty, so they managed to save up $200k for my education without raiding their retirement fund. That money was originally supposed to cover undergrad--but as I mentioned, I got lucky with college, so it transferred to school. I'm betting there are a decent number of TLSers whose parents covered their undergrad for $200k, so I wouldn't be any richer than they are. If I'm "very rich" then it's news to me, because no part of my life looks like it. And if you argue that be able to graduate debt-free by definition makes me rich, then your argument is circular.

But I think I'm in a pretty fortunate circumstance for my income bracket--an only child with old parents (who are pretty deep into their careers and have had longer to save) who are relatively frugal, in a medium-tax jurisdiction with a COL that isn't cheap, but isn't torturous either. If I were the oldest of five with parents in their forties in midtown Manhattan, then at my income level, I'd have no financial support. There are too many factors that go into such a calculation to make a sweeping declaration.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:I'm certainly upper-middle class, but not rich. I was told that my family would pay for undergrad (which could have been up to $200k), and afterwards they would "try" to help as much as they could, but no promises.

Yea I faced this same debate at some point TLS. I feel you, but at the same time, "upper middle class" = rich for many people on this site. I get the sense that most of the people who come on to Choosing a LS come from less affluent backgrounds, because wealthy people don't concern themselves with "scholarships", the "handouts of the masses", and just go to the highest ranked law school. We may be rarer cases of the 'upper middle class' active tls'er -- I go on TLS since I'm cooped up in my office at work from 8 to past 6 and bored to shit, and you are evidently intelligent/precocious but somewhat obsessive and not fully socialized -- but most of my wealthy friends are plastered in Ibiza, finding themselves in Nepal or driving around newport coast in their carreras hitting WeHo every night. I only get to play after 6:30PMish. Fuck work life.

For me, upper-middle class is distinct from rich in that UMC typically meant my family had financial security, but not luxury. My family was never broke, but at the same time there were no mansions, Porsches, fancy paintings or five-star restaurants. My family has never had anything you could point to and say "the average American couldn't dream of having that."

And I'm on TLS partially because I'm obsessive, and partially because I'm not as diligent in my work as I should be.

jbagelboy wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: I'm very lucky to live in a state with excellent public schools, and I wound up graduating in five semesters,

Ah. this explains a lot. You should have stayed longer in school bro! college is awesome. Maybe you'd have had more time for repose and enjoying yourself. I wouldn't have given up my junior and senior yr of college for anything... I feel very sorry for you. Also, you must be like 20?

I had my share of crazy times in undergrad. Really, the main thing is that if I'd stayed longer, I might've had a higher GPA--I had a 3.7 the only semester my schedule wasn't packed. Ah well, I got into a school that places top-five in my desired market and I had the option of NYU w/$ if I decided to gun for NYC, so I can't complain. And yeah, I'm young enough so that I'm not allowed to move into my apartment until August. I think my babyface is going to be a good thing somewhere in life, but it sure as hell won't be at OCI.

timbs4339 wrote: TBF, plenty of middle-class parents will refinance their homes, cosign private loans they can't help pay back, or dip into their retirement savings to finance a kid's education. With all the boomer-bashing on this site people forget that boomers often make terrible decisions because they honestly believe education is the answer to life's prayers.

In those situations the onus is on the applicant to firmly deny parental assistance when they know the parents are sacrificing retirement income or a safety net.

Absolutely--I feel really, really lucky to have picked a cheap public undergrad instead of a (lower) Ivy, since it turned out not to matter at all come law school admissions time (although I didn't know that when I picked a UG). It just sucks for a lot of people to have unnecessarily spent $200k to "go to a good college" and realize it was a total waste four years later. I didn't even have to bite the bullet, but I'm still pissed at the mainstream media, guidance counselors, Boomers I trusted, and even my parents (who said not to worry about the cost and to "go wherever I'd be happy", despite the fact that cost wound up making a huge difference) for leading to me to ALMOST make a terrible life choice at 17. Note to self: Never trust anybody ever.

Parents often know even less than the applicants do about the process and most of them are still stuck in the "everyone who goes to law school makes a bunch of money" mode that it doesn't even occur to them that there's such as thing as due diligence in the process. I think sadder than the kids who take on sticker debt because TTTs lied to them are the parents who blew their retirement money trying to do right by their kids and got hoodwinked, leaving them with next to nothing for retirement.

jbagelboy wrote: and then there are parents like mine, who maybe could afford to help with law school, but won't because they don't feel like its their responsibility, and i'm not about to ask them for it.

This happens more than it's given credit for, and these applicants are the most screwed--no help, but no hope of need aid because their financials say the parents COULD be paying for it.

jbagelboy wrote: and then there are parents like mine, who maybe could afford to help with law school, but won't because they don't feel like its their responsibility, and i'm not about to ask them for it.

This happens more than it's given credit for, and these applicants are the most screwed--no help, but no hope of need aid because their financials say the parents COULD be paying for it.

Suits99 wrote:I have financial support and can afford to go anywhere , my only concern is getting into a T-1 school.

yo duder, I just wanted to share my 2 cents as some1 who applied 1st with 3.61/162 then retook and applied with 3.61/166. First year I was straight denied by both BU/BC, and this year I got into BU with 60k scholly and WL'd at BC (honestly was surprised considering I had median GPA and 75th LSAT but whatevs).

I also have financial support for my degree but if you have only taken the LSAT once you should certainly retake. I was very averse to retaking at first and I think retaking certainly depends on your personal situation, but in like 8/10 situations retaking is the right call. Most schools don't give a fuck about you as a person and only care about these numbers. Money is still money at the end of the day and as it stands, BC/BU are not locks for you with those stats.

Additionally, I don't know how old you are or if you're still in UG or what, but even if I had not improved my LSAT or outcomes, taking a year off would have still been one of the best decisions I ever made. I'm much more prepared for the rigors of law school, I have a better idea of what to expect (although I'm sure most current law students here would scoff at this statement), and I am more clear on my professional goals.

jbagelboy wrote:Yea I agree, ultimately the safety net is nice and I often base my TLS recommendations on how much of a safety net that person has (i.e., how debtpwned someone is if they miss a lucrative career based on family resources) .. at the same time, I don't want that assumption to let me slip up. I play best back against the wall.

It helps when you've got an OP with an open mind who actually wants to know what's up with this whole law school thing.

Yup, this is the one guy actually looking for real, practical advice for every five saying "Here are my options, I've already made up my mind so it's a moot point but tell me my terrible decision was right" and "I can't retake, terrorists have kidnapped my family and they'll only release them if I go this year."

timbs4339 wrote: TBF, plenty of middle-class parents will refinance their homes, cosign private loans they can't help pay back, or dip into their retirement savings to finance a kid's education. With all the boomer-bashing on this site people forget that boomers often make terrible decisions because they honestly believe education is the answer to life's prayers.

In those situations the onus is on the applicant to firmly deny parental assistance when they know the parents are sacrificing retirement income or a safety net.

Absolutely--I feel really, really lucky to have picked a cheap public undergrad instead of a (lower) Ivy, since it turned out not to matter at all come law school admissions time (although I didn't know that when I picked a UG). It just sucks for a lot of people to have unnecessarily spent $200k to "go to a good college" and realize it was a total waste four years later. I didn't even have to bite the bullet, but I'm still pissed at the mainstream media, guidance counselors, Boomers I trusted, and even my parents (who said not to worry about the cost and to "go wherever I'd be happy", despite the fact that cost wound up making a huge difference) for leading to me to ALMOST make a terrible life choice at 17. Note to self: Never trust anybody ever.

Parents often know even less than the applicants do about the process and most of them are still stuck in the "everyone who goes to law school makes a bunch of money" mode that it doesn't even occur to them that there's such as thing as due diligence in the process. I think sadder than the kids who take on sticker debt because TTTs lied to them are the parents who blew their retirement money trying to do right by their kids and got hoodwinked, leaving them with next to nothing for retirement.

Another problem is that the poorer you are, the less likely you'll have law students in your social circle who can give you the heads up when the market starts to turn. Parents won't have lawyer friends or relatives they can ask for advice about whether they should sacrifice to fund their kid's education. That cultural lag causes big problems. It's probably less of a factor for the upper middle class country-club types, but hurts the middle class who may have just enough savings or equity where they can put a dent in tuition, but not enough so that it won't put them at risk.